Keep in mind that the Repulican response to this IMO is simply damage control.  The Republicans know there is no danger, for that matter so do the Libbies.  Likewise, they also know the media and Liberals would be against this measure, and in order to win votes in the upcoming election from the less knowledgeable constituents who believe everything they see on TV, they need to condemn this move by the White House.  In that way, they look like they are only concerned with the security of the country, when in actuality, they're concerned with keeping their legislative chairs.

I too, like some here, thought this was a bad idea until I learned the facts.  Relax.  There is no danger from terrorists sneaking in through ports, and because the Republicans are playing their cards right, they won't lose seats in the legislature over this either.  Now, let's secure our southern border before more terrorists do get in.

So if I understand this correctly, some of you will refuse to do business with any company that has ties to the Muslims.  You won't associate with them.  You won't buy products at their stores.  You won't allow them to buy property here, operate businesses here, etc.

All because some of them committed terrorist acts against us.

Using that twisted logic, there are an awful lot of groups of people you should avoid . . . . . like EVERYONE.

Quoted: So if I understand this correctly, some of you will refuse to do business with any company that has ties to the Muslims.  You won't associate with them.  You won't buy products at their stores.  You won't allow them to buy property here, operate businesses here, etc. All because some of them committed terrorist acts against us. Using that twisted logic, there are an awful lot of groups of people you should avoid . . . . . like EVERYONE.

No more 7-11.

Quoted: Quoted: So if I understand this correctly, some of you will refuse to do business with any company that has ties to the Muslims.  You won't associate with them.  You won't buy products at their stores.  You won't allow them to buy property here, operate businesses here, etc. All because some of them committed terrorist acts against us. Using that twisted logic, there are an awful lot of groups of people you should avoid . . . . . like EVERYONE. No more 7-11.

Add to the list,

Dry Cleaners,
Motels,
Computer repair shops,
several dining establishments,
half the taxi cabs in town

Quoted: Aren't the majority of people that will be working for the UAE at the ports be americans? I'm pretty sure they will be. Do you also want Toyota, Nissan, Honda and all the other foreign companies employing americans to just leave also?

YES......and while we're at it....seal the borders, make all cars run on ethanol, and put American farmers back to work farming.......and drill ANWR, and build more refineries, and bomb Venezuela, (just cause Chavez won't shut up), and what else?.....oh yeah, I have a hemmorroid, and it's all Bush and Rove's fault!!!!.......


Peace at last, the world is perfect!

Quoted: Quoted: Aren't the majority of people that will be working for the UAE at the ports be americans? I'm pretty sure they will be. Do you also want Toyota, Nissan, Honda and all the other foreign companies employing americans to just leave also? YES......and while we're at it....seal the borders, make all cars run on ethanol, and put American farmers back to work farming.......and drill ANWR, and build more refineries, and bomb Venezuela, (just cause Chavez won't shut up), and what else?.....oh yeah, I have a hemmorroid, and it's all Bush and Rove's fault!!!!....... Peace at last, the world is perfect!

ROFL!

I work across the street from a port in southeast Texas that will be controlled by the UAE company. They had a big article in the local paper today about the deal. I know locally the port security is done by an outside contractor and the waterway is controlled by the USCG. My police unit has also run some operations at the port.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the deal is only for longshoring services. A company holds the longshoring contract but they can only use local longshoremen. They call the union hall every afternoon and tell them how many longshoremen are needed for the next day. The union then sends over a crew and the company does not choose which longshoremen are on the crew. The UAE company appears to have just bought the business contract.  

I did some longshoring before I joined the police department. Unless it has changed, they pick the crews from whoever shows up to work and you only have to hold up a Social Security card to get picked. The local union picks local workers that they know. There was no background checks or anything else. No matter which company owns the contract, security is not effected one way or another that I can see. Please explain where I am wrong.

Quoted: I work across the street from a port in southeast Texas that will be controlled by the UAE company. They had a big article in the local paper today about the deal. I know locally the port security is done by an outside contractor and the waterway is controlled by the USCG. My police unit has also run some operations at the port. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the deal is only for longshoring services. A company holds the longshoring contract but they can only use local longshoremen. They call the union hall every afternoon and tell them how many longshoremen are needed for the next day. The union then sends over a crew and the company does not choose which longshoremen are on the crew. The UAE company appears to have just bought the business contract.   I did some longshoring before I joined the police department. Unless it has changed, they pick the crews from whoever shows up to work and you only have to hold up a Social Security card to get picked. The local union picks local workers that they know. There was no background checks or anything else. No matter which company owns the contract, security is not effected one way or another that I can see. Please explain where I am wrong.

Don't try to confuse the issue with facts!!!!  You will be labeled as a kool-aid drinker

What happens when customs officers find a container fill of terrorists with the UAE running the docks?  

Here is what happens; UAE looses their $6 billion investment overnight.

The Arabs holding the cash are not stupid with their investments.  

I would be more concerned about the implications with foreign investment over the long term, rather than the fear of compromising port security.

Quoted: What happens when customs officers find a container fill of terrorists with the UAE running the docks?   Here is what happens; UAE looses their $6 billion investment overnight. The Arabs holding the cash are not stupid with their investments.   I would be more concerned about the implications with foreign investment over the long term, rather than the fear of compromising port security.

Quit injecting more logic here.  People can't stand that

I just hope all you Republican apologists ( I vote Republican myself ) keep something in mind;  IF we have another major terrorist attack under this administration, and the terrorists are traced to the open ports or borders, your beloved Republican party is done for at least a generation of Americans.

The Democrats will escape any responsibility by saying that the House, Senate and the Presidency are controlled by the Republicans, who allowed this to happen...and the voters who voted Republican on a national security platform will buy it.

If you really loved your party, you'd be against this absurdity like most, if not all, the Republicans in the House and Senate.

I don't get how some people are not capable of understanding that security at the ports now, is the exact same as 6 months ago, and 6 months in the future.  With people capable of such little though it's no wonder our country is in the condition it is.

As I understand it, the company that is buying the deal is simply an ownership. The security will still remain with the Port Authority/Police, Private Sector, etc.

Quoted: As I understand it, the company that is buying the deal is simply an ownership. The security will still remain with the Port Authority/Police, Private Sector, etc.

All they get to do is take fees and hire longshoremen.  THATS IT.  There is absolutly no way they can do ANYTHING negative security wise that can't be done right now.  Terrorists are like electricity, the go through the path of least resistance.  BORDERS BORDERS BORDERS

Quoted: What happens when customs officers find a container fill of terrorists with the UAE running the docks?   Here is what happens; UAE looses their $6 billion investment overnight.

Show me the contract where it says that.  Since you are posting it as fact obviously you have a link to backup your claim.

Quoted: Quoted: What happens when customs officers find a container fill of terrorists with the UAE running the docks?   Here is what happens; UAE looses their $6 billion investment overnight. Show me the contract where it says that.  Since you are posting it as fact obviously you have a link to backup your claim.

You think the .gov would just let them continue to operate ports? The whole operation would be nationalized so fast it would make your head swim.

Anyone remember the Maginot Line?  People, you cannot guarantee, even with Soviet-style "search every car, mine the borders, Berlin wall" style security, safety of borders.

The best defense is a good offense, and that is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Also, by making friends and fostering democracy and capitalism, like we did with the Communists, we will slowly but surely change them.

The knee-jerk reactionism, "kill-em-all" attitudes, and downright bigotry that some are displaying here are part of the problem, not the solution.

Quoted: The knee-jerk reactionism, "kill-em-all" attitudes, and downright bigotry that some are displaying here are part of the problem, not the solution.

Except that when they fuck us in the end, the "kill-em-all" attitudes were right after all, and your appeasement attitude is/was the downfall of us all.  Why is it that this bigotry is/was wrong?

Quoted: Quoted: The knee-jerk reactionism, "kill-em-all" attitudes, and downright bigotry that some are displaying here are part of the problem, not the solution. Except that when they fuck us in the end, the "kill-em-all" attitudes were right after all, and your appeasement attitude is/was the downfall of us all.  Why is it that this bigotry is/was wrong?

Mindless reactionism to every perceived threat is delusional paranoia.  You are basically saying with your statement that you can tell the future, that "they" (whoever "they" are) will fuck us in the end.  So, may I ask you, oh 100% prognosticator, what company will be the next Microsoft, so I can make loads of cash?  This sort of stealth bigotry is beneath most enlightened, intelligent homo sapiens.  It is sad that you are engaging in it.  Turn in your guns now.  

For crying out loud!  We're LEASING them some terminal space.  Loading and unloading to be done by American longshoremem and security by the USCG.  That's ALL it is.  It won't be any easier or harder to sneak something across now then it was before.

I wish some people would at least make some tiny effort to become educated before spouting off some kneejerk reaction, or worse, some talking point directly out of Hillary's handbook.

No Honolulu, bummer.  I was hoping for some target practice.

The scariest part is that all the morons taking part in the uproar are also voters.

Every single person who is polled on this subject should be tested to see if they can correctly locate the ports' major cities on an outline map of North America.

Quoted: Every single person who is polled on this subject should be tested to see if they can correctly locate the ports' major cities on an outline map of North America.

good luck.

What a bunch of sniviling  Republican sycophants, putting petty partisan politics over national security.
Have you bootlickers all forgotten that we might not have had 9-11, if UAE officials weren't hanging out with Osama,  because in '99 Bin Laden was in the company of UAE Emirates and he wasn't taken out because of the political fallout of killing our UAE 'allies" with him?

Is the UAE under Sharia law?   Are women stoned to death if they get raped, are petty theives dismembered over there, are their children raised to hate the "infidel?"

Maybe GD needs to be changed to Republican Underground, you have the same group think mentality as the DU'ers.

Quoted: What a bunch of sniviling  Republican sycophants, putting petty partisan politics over national security. Have you bootlickers all forgotten that we might not have had 9-11, if UAE officials weren't hanging out with Osama,  because in '99 Bin Laden was in the company of UAE Emirates and he wasn't taken out because of the political fallout of killing our UAE 'allies" with him? Is the UAE under Sharia law?   Are women stoned to death if they get raped, are petty theives dismembered over there, are their children raised to hate the "infidel?" Maybe GD needs to be changed to Republican Underground, you have the same group think mentality as the DU'ers.

You know if the US didn't help terrorists, maybe the 9/11 hijackers wouldn't have been trained to fly. If US banks wouldn't have taken terrorist money the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have had the cash for the training. If two US citizens hadn't have helped maybe the '98 embassy bombings wouldn't have happened.

The simple fact is the UAE is a valuable ally in the GWOT. They have frozen more terrorist assets than any other ME nation. They have been in the lead on port security by being on of the first nations to allow container inspections before they're loaded on ships. They have allowed basing rights in their country for operations on the GWOT. Terrorism in our ports and assisting our military presence is in their best interests. Maybe if you'd look past their color and religion you'd see that.

Quoted: Quoted: What a bunch of sniviling  Republican sycophants, putting petty partisan politics over national security. Have you bootlickers all forgotten that we might not have had 9-11, if UAE officials weren't hanging out with Osama,  because in '99 Bin Laden was in the company of UAE Emirates and he wasn't taken out because of the political fallout of killing our UAE 'allies" with him? Is the UAE under Sharia law?   Are women stoned to death if they get raped, are petty theives dismembered over there, are their children raised to hate the "infidel?" Maybe GD needs to be changed to Republican Underground, you have the same group think mentality as the DU'ers. You know if the US didn't help terrorists, maybe the 9/11 hijackers wouldn't have been trained to fly. If US banks wouldn't have taken terrorist money the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have had the cash for the training. If two US citizens hadn't have helped maybe the '98 embassy bombings wouldn't have happened. The simple fact is the UAE is a valuable ally in the GWOT. They have frozen more terrorist assets than any other ME nation. They have been in the lead on port security by being on of the first nations to allow container inspections before they're loaded on ships. They have allowed basing rights in their country for operations on the GWOT. Terrorism in our ports and assisting our military presence is in their best interests. Maybe if you'd look past their color and religion you'd see that.

Color and Religion?  Oh, I get it, I'm a racist because I have a problem with allowing a religion/political idealogy who's existence is antithetical to a western lifestyle to have an anchor in half a dozen of our major ports.


The difference between us and them, is, when our people or "immigrants" pull their shit in our country it's not state sponsered, as we're not a theocratic nation like the UAE.

Are you so naive to think that nothing goes on in that country, or on that country's behalf, that the mullahs running the show over there don't give their approval to?
I'm sure it's been said in this thread already, but it bears repeating-even though the UAE may just be in charge of the day to day operations, they'll still interface with security and a whole lot can be gleaned just by watching.

What happens if radical imams take over the government of UAE?  What happens if one of these scumbags approaches a longshoreman, offers him 50K to look the other way when a "drug" shipment comes through?  What if it's not drugs, but a dirty bomb?  Bribery's a common occurance on the southern border, what makes you think it can't happen in our ports?

Why do so many of you give unwavering loyalty to the administration over this, when most of you know how this president's neglected our southern border?

Rmember when we were told to trust him over Harriet Meirs?

I voted for this president twice, campaigned for him and gave money;  I've earned the right to question this, it's insanity and my daughter's future hangs on the hopes that we can "trust" this decision.

Get back to me tomorrow, after you get your talking points from Rush Limbaugh.

Quoted: Color and Religion?  Oh, I get it, I'm a racist because I have a problem with allowing a religion/political idealogy who's existence is antithetical to a western lifestyle to have an anchor in half a dozen of our major ports.

No, it's because you paint everyone with a broad brush, utilizing only their race and religion, and an inaccurate one at that.

The difference between us and them, is, when our people or "immigrants" pull their shit in our country it's not state sponsered, as we're not a theocratic nation like the UAE.

So, the .gov of UAE sponsered the 9/11 terrorists? Got any proof of that?

Are you so naive to think that nothing goes on in that country, or on that country's behalf, that the mullahs running the show over there don't give their approval to?

See, this shows your ignorance, and out of ignorance comes fear. Mullah most definitely do not run the UAE. Again you paint the region with a broad brush, accuracy be damned.

I'm sure it's been said in this thread already, but it bears repeating-even though the UAE may just be in charge of the day to day operations, they'll still interface with security and a whole lot can be gleaned just by watching.

And how many workers are in a port any given day? How many seaman can observe and learn? This is not exactly news and wouldn't change no matter who was running the ports.

What happens if radical imams take over the government of UAE?  What happens if one of these scumbags approaches a longshoreman, offers him 50K to look the other way when a "drug" shipment comes through?  What if it's not drugs, but a dirty bomb?  Bribery's a common occurance on the southern border, what makes you think it can't happen in our ports?

Why couldn't it happen now? Oh wait, it could.

Why do so many of you give unwavering loyalty to the administration over this, when most of you know how this president's neglected our southern border?

Why are you equating ports with the southern border? Hell, if I was a terrorist I'd come from Canada. They're much more friendly than our ports or Mexico.

Rmember when we were told to trust him over Harriet Meirs? I voted for this president twice, campaigned for him and gave money;  I've earned the right to question this, it's insanity and my daughter's future hangs on the hopes that we can "trust" this decision. Get back to me tomorrow, after you get your talking points from Rush Limbaugh.

Wow, it must suck to live with so much hate inside. FWIW, I haven't listened to Rush since September 1st 2004, while driving through West Virginia on my way to St. Louis. Before that it was sometime in 1999.

Unlike some people, I don't get "talking points" from the media.

Quoted: Quoted: Color and Religion?  Oh, I get it, I'm a racist because I have a problem with allowing a religion/political idealogy who's existence is antithetical to a western lifestyle to have an anchor in half a dozen of our major ports. No, it's because you paint everyone with a broad brush, utilizing only their race and religion, and an inaccurate one at that. The difference between us and them, is, when our people or "immigrants" pull their shit in our country it's not state sponsered, as we're not a theocratic nation like the UAE. So, the .gov of UAE sponsered the 9/11 terrorists? Got any proof of that? Are you so naive to think that nothing goes on in that country, or on that country's behalf, that the mullahs running the show over there don't give their approval to? See, this shows your ignorance, and out of ignorance comes fear. Mullah most definitely do not run the UAE. Again you paint the region with a broad brush, accuracy be damned. I'm sure it's been said in this thread already, but it bears repeating-even though the UAE may just be in charge of the day to day operations, they'll still interface with security and a whole lot can be gleaned just by watching. And how many workers are in a port any given day? How many seaman can observe and learn? This is not exactly news and wouldn't change no matter who was running the ports. What happens if radical imams take over the government of UAE?  What happens if one of these scumbags approaches a longshoreman, offers him 50K to look the other way when a "drug" shipment comes through?  What if it's not drugs, but a dirty bomb?  Bribery's a common occurance on the southern border, what makes you think it can't happen in our ports? Why couldn't it happen now? Oh wait, it could. Why do so many of you give unwavering loyalty to the administration over this, when most of you know how this president's neglected our southern border? Why are you equating ports with the southern border? Hell, if I was a terrorist I'd come from Canada. They're much more friendly than our ports or Mexico. Rmember when we were told to trust him over Harriet Meirs? I voted for this president twice, campaigned for him and gave money;  I've earned the right to question this, it's insanity and my daughter's future hangs on the hopes that we can "trust" this decision. Get back to me tomorrow, after you get your talking points from Rush Limbaugh. Wow, it must suck to live with so much hate inside. FWIW, I haven't listened to Rush since September 1st 2004, while driving through West Virginia on my way to St. Louis. Before that it was sometime in 1999. Unlike some people, I don't get "talking points" from the media.

"Wow, it must suck to live with so much hate inside...."  dport

You argue like a DU'er, putting emotion ahead of reason.
This is one argument where I really hope my adversary's right....I'd love to be wrong on this.

Quoted: You argue like a DU'er, putting emotion ahead of reason. This is one argument where I really hope my adversary's right....I'd love to be wrong on this.

You are the one who is arguing with emotion.

You have yet to show where the UAE .gov sponsered 9/11. You have yet to be able to distinguish who rules the UAE, what their motivations are, etc. All you've been able to do is argue an emotional viewpoint. That the UAE is muslim and therefore cannot be trusted to own a company who employs Americans to run onload/offload operations at our ports.

Somehow having this company running these onload/offload operations makes us more vulnerable than we are today. However, you have not been able to articulate anything to back up your claims. The simple fact is if someone wanted to conduct ISR on our ports they could today. In fact, with the vast majority of containers not being inspected they wouldn't even have to do that. This position of your also seems to discount the Americans actually running port security.

I keep seeing that we cannot allow foreigners to run our ports. A poor attempt to hide the xenophobia when it comes to Arabs and Muslims. This view dismisses the fact that it was indeed a British company who ran our ports prior to this deal. And that the Chinese already run several ports on the West Coast. I'd bet a good bit of our port services are foreign companies already, but about them I hear nary a word.

The whole basis of this objection is the racial an religious background of the country who holds majority share in the company. They do not even run day to day operations of DPW, an American does.

The UAE company has offered to base a subsidiary company here, seperate from the parent company in the UAE to appease US politicians and people.  It will not be controlled by the parent company, and will be open to the US .gov in terms of security and regulation the same as any company operating within our borders.  The US based company will hire a US workforce, operate within US rules and regulations, and be accountable under US laws.  The UAE parent company will reap the benefit of making money off the ports.  The fact remains, though:  The US will be in control of everything!  The UAE company just wants to make money like any global company!

I guess the saddest part of what is happen with this deal and others like it is that most Politicians in our Government and our President are putting foreign nations and business first over the interest or intent of the American people. Most people don’t understand that back room deals like this are happening everyday to sell out our nations infrastructure with little to no Congressional oversight. Most Americans are in the dark about issues like the future passage of FTAA around 2010 when our borders will be all but abolished and many roads in the USA will be under the control of Mexico and Canada under FTAA trade agreements. In some cases US taxpayer funds will go into building and maintain these roads even though we do not own them. To add insult to injury, under this plan Americans would have to pay tolls to use these roads for personal use even though we built them for foreign nations. Except for a few lone Patriots like Rep Ron Paul most politicians could give a crap about border security because they understand they are going away in the very near future. This Port deal is just a very small part of the great sell out of our Country.

No one but Americans or American owned companies should ever be allowed to have control, ownership or leases over any of our critical taxpayer paid national infrastructure on US soil. It does not matter if it is Ports, Airports, Roads or Dams only Americans should have control, up keep and ownership over them. Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, Kerry and their ilk are all Globalist and they do not have the best interest of America in their decisions anymore.

Make no mistake about it, this is happening and this is no conspiracy theory. They are open with their agenda, facts and plans. First it was NAFTA then CAFTA then the final nail in our coffin is FTAA around 2010. Most folks just can’t believe it is happening. It’s just sad many of us can’t see the writing on the wall. Over the next four to five years if we don’t seal that border and take back control of America and make the USA #1 priority again then America will be all but lost as we known it. As we all sit here and argue over being a Left Wing or Right Wing in our views and opinions on different issues both side are selling us out and cutting our throats on a daily basis. Many people laughed about Ross Perot when he warned us about uncheck illegal immigration do to Nafta/Cafta deal but he was right. With an estimated 20+million illegals running amuck in America I guess it’s not so funny now is it?

God Bless all of you on AR15.com and our great Republic, Lord knows we need it.

Quoted: Quoted: I bet a majority of our troops overseas are really pissed about this issue. a friend of mine who just got back was a staunch "Bush Man" before he left. I spoke to him at length about this last night and needless to say he is extremely upset. Further, he is concerned that the latest mosque bombing may result in an Iraqi Civil War between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The Iraqi War, would be "unwinnable" if this were to occur......................

Tell him not to worry. Dr. Jorge will increase their dose of democracy. All will be fine.


ETA

Quoted: Quoted: but but but.....they're A-rabs! And that, my friends, is at the heart of it all.  The amount of racism being shown over this issue, in the press, amongst politicians, and even members of this board, is eye-opening.

There's certainly some of that. But Bush brought a lot of this on himself with his ham handed, some would say arrogant, handling of the matter. I think a case could be made that the transfer is no big deal. But that is predicated on how much you trust the administration to level with us, and they don't help things sometimes. And finally I think there is a transfer to the port deal of anger from the situation on the southern border and the government's (not just the current executive branch) abdication of responsibility there.

tag

I simply don't know how we can get any more foolish than some of us are in this controversy.

Either the U.A.E. is a partner in the War on Terror, or it is not.

They either deserve to be rewarded for their contributions to our efforts in the Middle East, or they don't.

Frankly, it should cause the United States to redouble its security along its borders, as well as in its ports.

But some foolish folks believe that if the ports remain with 'other' foreign companies, things will be all right, security-wise....so long as the operators are not Arabs.

And this is how we win their hearts and minds?

Eric The(Un-fricking-believable)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: In perspective.  Every publicly owned stadium has a food concession.  The local government is not however in the business of making or selling food and beverages.  In turn, a company leases the right to sell food and beverages and pays a fee for each item sold to that government that actually owns the stadium and food prep areas.  This is usually done for a period of years until the lease expires.  At that time its up for bids again to determine which relationship is best for the local government. This is a similar situation.  The rights to inspect the cargo, enforce laws, which ships enter and leave and who is allowed access however do not change and still rest with the government, just as the local authority can sell tickets, or refuse entry into that stadium, or require that people entering do not bring in certain things. That is really what this is all about. I suppose ADT tells Bill Gates what he can and cannot carry into Microsoft?

Bill Gates OWNS THE DAMN PROPERTY that Microsoft operates.  It is PRIVATE!  The ports are NOT!  They are CITY PROPERTY!

Hello?

Quoted: What is all this racism bullshit? We dont like them becuase they killed THOUSANDS of Americans on 9/11, they had ties to it. No one gives a fuck what color their skin is. If these people were white we still wouldnt want them here. Even if they are a good company it still looks bad.   Its like hiring a Japanese company in the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.

All current times are after Pearl Harbor.

I remember your hysteria from the 1980's.  Overblown Japanese-fearing horseshit propaganda.

Quoted: I simply don't know how we can get any more foolish than some of us are in this controversy. Either the U.A.E. is a partner in the War on Terror, or it is not. They either deserve to be rewarded for their contributions to our efforts in the Middle East, or they don't. Frankly, it should cause the United States to redouble its security along its borders, as well as in its ports. But some foolish folks believe that if the ports remain with 'other' foreign companies, things will be all right, security-wise....so long as the operators are not Arabs. And this is how we win their hearts and minds? Eric The(Un-fricking-believable)Hun

"They either deserve to be rewarded for their contributions to our efforts in the Middle East, or they don't...."  ETH

They don't "deserve" shit-"if" they help us in the WOT, it's because it benefits them.  


Borrowed from the 14 page thread on this topic;

Al Qaeda has penetrated the UAE Government

QAEDA CLAIM: WE 'INFILTRATED' UAE GOV'T

By NILES LATHEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port...


http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm

Quoted: Why would this  be a problem? Can anyone explain why Dubai Ports World operating shipping terminals (not the ports, not security, not customs), would be an increased threat to the US?

Well, n the face of it, there were concerns raised (pre-deal) in the report BY the COAST GUARD that noted several glaring "security gaps" that there would be should the deal go through.

"Intelligence gaps" that prevented them (coast guard) from fully investigating and developing an "overall threat assesment" of the potential merger.

Concerning operations:

What is the security environment at ALL of the DPW's port or terminal operations?

What are the backgrounds of all of the personel that would be working at these ports?

Foreign influence

Is there foreign influence (other that the UAE) that could affect security at any of these ports, and iIF SO, WHO are those countries.

And frankly, just COMMON SENSE says that this is FAR from a "good idea".

Don't forget, UAE would NOT let us do sufficient investigations into WHERE the $$$ came from right after 9/11 occurred. They were one of the LAST "holdouts", and as I recall (tho could be wrong, as it is only recollection) and may NEVER have "frozen accounts" of known terrorist entities!!! Now we're going to just hand it over???

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why would this  be a problem? Can anyone explain why Dubai Ports World operating shipping terminals (not the ports, not security, not customs), would be an increased threat to the US? If you don't understand why we should not sell controling intrest of our US taxpayer paid ports after 9/11 then there is not much hope for you. Don't mean to bust on you but damn, since when is it ok to sell any of our infastructure or control of that infastructure to a possible hostile nation.  I know that the Brits ran this before but that was not right either in my view. We need to start to put the USA first again and stop this wholesale sell out of our Country. I guess money is the root of all evil when you really look at it. Terrorism won't kill us greed will. I guess you don't understand that the part of the operations involved with this deal are already controlled by a foreign company and the UAE simply aquired THAT company? This is really one of those situations where you can back off, see that democrats are adamant in their opposition and use it as a litmus test to choose the opposite (and correct) course of action. It works every time. The operation does not involve security. If that is an issue it will still have to be addressed by customs not the port operator.

MAYBE yu have a point, but then WHY was/is the Investigative arm of the COAST GUARD raised/raising Q's about SECURITY regarding the company???

Quoted: One of the 9/11 hijackers was from UAE. Most of the 9/11 hijackers travelled through UAE. WMD components have been shipped to Iran, Irag and Korea through UAE run ports. Funding for the 9/11 hijackers was sent through the UAE banking system. The UAE government resisted US efforts to track Bin Ladens bank accounts post 9/11. 28% of UAE citizens consider Bin Laden a hero.

I thought this bore sme emphasis.... that's all.

Quoted: Since when is being in agreement with the Republican leadership that this needs to be looked into being "spoonfed by the libtard media"?  The only people being spoon fed are the Bush Koolaid drinkers who are all in favor of a deal where no one has all the facts yet.  Who's being spoon fed those who want to look at what's going on or those jumping on the band wagon by repeating what Bush said even though they have few if any facts of what is actually happening?

Exactly! If Bush said it, it MUST be gospel!

I don't care WTF said what, I need some REAL facts, so I can make a reasonable conclusion, BUT on the face of it, seems really DUMB.... (not that I'm SURPRISED by who is for/against this ... aside from a few here).

Quoted: FACTS.  The company will only be responsible for fees for docking, loading, unloading and storage of cargo.  It will use those fees to hire AMERICAN workers to do all these tasks.  Security and Customs and inspection will all still be handled by ICE and the USCG.  Those are facts.  I freaked at first to, then I slowed down, grew a brain, and watched the BS fly.   Here's another fact.  No matter what they do within their power, the ports will NEVER be as open to smuggling or attack as our borders.  PRIORITIES!

Can't we have BOTH? Safe borders/safe ports?

Quoted: So at what point did we start trusting Germany and Japan enough to do business with them?

I dunno, but I'll bet it took a lot longer than just 5 years!!!

Quoted: I work across the street from a port in southeast Texas that will be controlled by the UAE company. They had a big article in the local paper today about the deal. I know locally the port security is done by an outside contractor and the waterway is controlled by the USCG. My police unit has also run some operations at the port. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the deal is only for longshoring services. A company holds the longshoring contract but they can only use local longshoremen. They call the union hall every afternoon and tell them how many longshoremen are needed for the next day. The union then sends over a crew and the company does not choose which longshoremen are on the crew. The UAE company appears to have just bought the business contract.   I did some longshoring before I joined the police department. Unless it has changed, they pick the crews from whoever shows up to work and you only have to hold up a Social Security card to get picked. The local union picks local workers that they know. There was no background checks or anything else. No matter which company owns the contract, security is not effected one way or another that I can see. Please explain where I am wrong.

I don't know if you are right OR wrong, but will the company set "standards?" No "security" standards, just like how many long/high can crates (don't have the proper word) are stacked? How they come OFF the ships (what "order" etc...) can they then OBSERVE the folks that they hire, and see WHO does and does NOT follow these dictates? Can they OBSERVE which containers get inspected, and which do not? Which inspector is a lazy %$#%@ who always checks out the container on the top left corner of the 3rd or 5th stack? Could they figure out when a (something the terrorists want, that's dangerous, and otherwise would NOT be permitted) would be LEAST likely detected?  I think SO. I could be wrong.

Intelligence is 98% of the "battle" does this deal give POTENTIAL "problem" entities better access? Seems to me it does. The COO might be a GREAT stand up guy, or maybe he's just a greedy asshat, and could care less, I dunno. But presumably some citiazen of the UAE who MIGHT be "sympathetic" (or have a relative who is) could have a higher position in the company to be in a position to glean some of this info....

At the risk of posting without hearing the story in its entirety...did I hear today that now the USCG has some safety concerns about the issue of DPW running the operations of these port terminals?  If so, what specifically are the concerns?

I see we are back for round two with this issue at ARFCOM.  Two or three guys telling all the skeptics that there is nothing to worry about.  I still find it concerning that (what I perceive is) most of Congress seems very uneducated about the facts either way, and seem opposed until questions are answered about safety issues and how this decision was made.  I suspect that the deal will go through.  I suspect that most Democrats will be opposed just for the sake of being opposed, and some Republicans will agree reluctantly because the "facts" are unclear.  I liken this to chess.  I hope the Administration already knows the next move scenarios and this is a low risk move.  I will continue to judge the UAE and all Arab nations by their history of violence toward and hatred for the West, let alone their complete inability to get along among themselves.  I hope a handful of nations such as the UAE are making progress.  For the forseeable future, I hope any olive branches we extend to the Arab Nations of Middle East are benign in content.

Blake

Well it came out today in the press that the UAE still boycotts Israel.  We're "racist" if we don't want representatives of this theorcratic muslim nation in our midst, but it's OK apparantly if they hate Jews.

I don't know if Pres. Bush is this clever - I'd like to think he is, but wouldn't it be interesting to see a US base in UAE?  Those who know where it is know that he who is in the UAE controls the Straits of Hormuz.

I'm not so much worried about port security as the stuff that's getting shipped, already in containers.  

Quoted: I don't know if Pres. Bush is this clever - I'd like to think he is, but wouldn't it be interesting to see a US base in UAE?  Those who know where it is know that he who is in the UAE controls the Straits of Hormuz. I'm not so much worried about port security as the stuff that's getting shipped, already in containers.

That would really be something, huh?  

www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/dhafra.htm

Al Dhafra Air Base, UAE 24°14'54" N 54°32'52"E Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates is located about an hour outside of Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. The 763rd Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron [formerly designated the 4413th Air Refueling Squadron (Provisional)] conducts in-flight refueling missions throughout Southwest Asia in support of Operation Southern Watch, a coalition force tasked to monitor United Nations Security Council resolutions restricting air and ground operations in Southern Iraq. The Air Force operates KC-10 refueling planes which are involved in sustaining US warplanes covering the southern no-flight zone over Iraq. Both U-2s and Global Hawk operated from the the United Arab Emirates since early in Operation Enduring Freedom. The UAE air force is split into a western and central air command based in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, respectively. Western command has air bases at Al Dhafra, Bateen and Al Ain Sharjah international airport. The largest base is Al Dhafra in Abu Dhabi, which has two squadrons of Mirage 2000s and one with Mirage-5s. Al Dhafra is also home to the Abu Dhabi Royal Flight, the AH-64As, the Cougars and the Puma transports. The 10th Tactical Fighter Squadron deployed to Al Dhafra AB, United Arab Emirates, for operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The Gulf War stimulated the UAE's interest in building a security relationship with the United States. The two countries concluded a Defense Cooperation Agreement in 1994. Among Gulf states friendly to the United States, the UAE is probably least supportive of the US hard line toward Iraq. UAE officials are sensitive to criticism from Islamic sects of close ties to the United States. As the US Air Force increased the lengths of most Operation Southern Watch deployments from 90 to 120 days beginning 01 June 1997, quality of life issues became paramount for the nearly 300 people deployed at Al Dhafra AB. Established in August 1992, the 4413th ARS(P) had a history of quality of life programs. Popular quality of life measures include a recreation center, complete with large-screen televisions, pingpong tables, a foosball table and a pool table. A paperback book library, video check-out center and video game stations are also housed in the rec center. All living quarters (tents and trailers) are equipped with a TV and VCR. Attacks on the Office of the Program Manager/Saudi Arabia National Guard (OPM/SANG) in November 1995 and on the Khobar Towers living compound in June 1996 forever changed the way in which the Armed Forces will regard terrorism in the Persian Gulf. Security precautions were taken in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait as US personnel moved from the Sahara Residency in downtown Abu Dhabi onto Al Dhafra air base outside the city and from the international airport at Kuwait City onto Ahmed Al Jabber air base in the desert. As the Air Force increased the lengths of most Operation Southern Watch deployments from 90 to 120 days beginning 01 June 1997, quality of life issues became even more paramount for the 4413th Air Refueling Squadron (Provisional). Established in August 1992, the 4413th ARS(P) has a history of great quality of life programs. Popular quality of life measures here include: A recreation center, complete with large-screen televisions, pingpong tables, a foosball table and a pool table. A paperback book library, video check-out center and video game stations are also housed in the rec center. A fitness center, consisting of free-weights, Nautilus equipment and a few cardiovascular machines. All meals contracted through a local Holiday Inn, including box lunches for aircrew members. A morale phone center. Plans are under way to hook up three computers for "morale e-mail." All living quarters (tents and trailers) equipped with a TV and VCR. A laundry tent with 24 washers and dryers (again, rarely crowded). A barrel of free soap powder is also available in the tent. Two side-by-side, above-ground swimming pools. Civil engineers built a large deck around the pools. A basketball and sand volleyball court. The Air Force Contract Augmentation Program (AFCAP) is a cost-plus award fee contract designed to provide on-call capability in a wide range of contingency civil engineer and services support (except crash/fire rescue, explosive ordnance disposal, mortuary affairs and field exchanges). The current AFCAP contractor is Readiness Management Support L.C. a subsidiary of Johnson Controls. The RMS contract team is actively involved in two 12-month task orders that provide 35 power generator mechanics and 16 engineers at four locations in Southwest Asia. The four locations include Prince Sultan Air Base, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Ali Al Salem AB, Kuwait; Al Jaber AB, Kuwait; and Al Dhafra AB, United Arab Emirates. Each location has a wide variety of mobility and commercial generators up to and including 1000KW. The support equates to “backfilling” 140 blue-suiter rotations and reduces the OPSTEMPO requirements on active duty AF power production specialists.

Well, well, interesting info.  Then an expansion of capability and role?  A quid pro quo.  

Quoted: Well, well, interesting info.  Then an expansion of capability and role?  A quid pro quo.

We already have 100% cooperation from the UAE, we can fly any aircraft on any mission we like out of their airspace.  They really are our strongest ally in the region, there isn't much they could do to help us out that they aren't already doing.  Qatar also gave us a VERY long term lease for our air base there.  

Quoted: Well, well, interesting info.  Then an expansion of capability and role?  A quid pro quo.

Gives us some leverage to work them in several areas. Probably the most important is trafficking in persons, followed by Israel(let's face it there are more important countries, like Saudi Arabia, to get onboard for that effort), etc.

Quoted: I don't know if Pres. Bush is this clever - I'd like to think he is, but wouldn't it be interesting to see a US base in UAE?  Those who know where it is know that he who is in the UAE controls the Straits of Hormuz. I'm not so much worried about port security as the stuff that's getting shipped, already in containers.

Actually all of these.

Al Dhafra AB, UAE
Fujairah, UAE
Fujairah IAP, UAE
Jebel Ali, UAE
Mina Zayed, UAE
Port Rashid, UAE

Quoted: Quoted: Well, well, interesting info.  Then an expansion of capability and role?  A quid pro quo.   We already have 100% cooperation from the UAE, we can fly any aircraft on any mission we like out of their airspace.  They really are our strongest ally in the region, there isn't much they could do to help us out that they aren't already doing.  Qatar also gave us a VERY long term lease for our air base there.

Then one would have to consider that it would make no sense to harm that relationship unless someone wanted to harm the war effort, and the possible coming war with Iran or Syria.  Iran would like to control the Gulf, but we would control the Straits or Hormuz very easily, without even needing long range aircraft, or stationing a carrier task force for the purpose. One has to wonder why some are trying to subvert this.